TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 756
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../- c) Auditor's remuneration Rs.22,833/- d) General Expenses Rs.52,866/- e) Directors sitting fees Rs.3,500/- Rs. 24,02,571/- 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (A) failed to appreciate that assessee being a corporate entity, it has to incur certain expenditure for the day to day functioning of the company which are allowable expenditure u/s. 37 of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the findings of the learned Assessing officer in not allowing setoff of brought forward unabsorbed business loss and depreciation against the assessed income. 4. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any or all th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issued a notice to the = asking it as to why certain disallowances should not be mad to its income. In its reply, dated 12.10.2008,the assesse replied that it was engaged in the business of investing, leasing and financing, that it was incorporated with the objective of investing and financing since June,1992,that since then it had carried on the said business, that receipt and payment of interest was an ordinary activity conducting in the normal course of business, that the interest receipt should not considered separately, that it made an application for registration to Reserve Bank of India(RBI)to register it as NBFC, that the net owned funds of the assessee were below the prescribed minimum level, that because of that it could not get r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st income assessed for the year under appeal. The assessee also contended that explanation to sec.37(1) dealt with the expenses incurred for any purpose which was an offense or was prohibited by law, that payment of interest, audit, professional fee, general expenses could by no means be said to be expenditure for any purposes which was an offense or prohibited by law, that the disallowance of expenditure amounting to Rs. 213.66 lacs was not justified. Without prejudice to above it was argued that in case the AO held the assessee was carrying on illegal business then the net income of such business was required to be computed under the head profits and gains from business and profession, that by no stretch of imagination such income could b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....firmed the action of AO in assessing the interest as income from other sources. He also concurred with the AO in disallowing expenditure form the interest. He also held that no business loss/depreciation could be allowed to be set off against income from other sources. Finally, he dismissed the appeal by the assessee. 4. Before us, Authorised Represetative (AR)contended that the assessee was carrying out business activities, that it had disallowed interest amounting to Rs. 76.09 lacs, that it had incurred the expenses for running business and maintaining the corporate entity, that it had shown the income to the extent of income earned, that the RBI had rejected the application of the assessee as it was not having sufficient own fund, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovisions of law under the RBI Act it would be penalised by the appropriate authority. But that does not mean that the systematic organized activity carried out by the assessee for earning profit would not be treated as business. The explanation to sec.37(1) of the Act is not at all applicable to the case under consideration. In the scrutiny assessment, completed in the earlier years, the AO had assessed the interest income as business income and had allowed all the expenditure related with the business activity. The rule of consistency demands that for deviating from the stand taken in the earlier AY. ,the AO should bring on record the distinguishing feature of that particular year. We find that the AO or the FAA has not mentioned even a si....